the adult oriented sport coaching survey: an instrument athletes. · 2020. 9. 29. · 28 resources...
TRANSCRIPT
For Peer Review
The Adult Oriented Sport Coaching Survey: An instrument designed to assess coaching behaviours tailored to adult
athletes.
Journal: Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Manuscript ID JSEP.2020-0031.R1
Manuscript Type: Original Research
Keywords: coaching, andragogy, Masters athletes, psychometrics, survey validation
Abstract:
Adult sportspersons (Masters athletes, 35 + yrs) have unique coaching preferences (Callary, Rathwell & Young, 2017). No existing resources provide coaches with feedback on their craft with Masters athletes. Three studies evaluated an adult-oriented coaching survey. Study 1 vetted the face validity of 50 survey items with 12 Masters coaches. Results supported the validity of 48 items. In Study 2, 383 Masters coaches completed the 50 items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) indicated issues with model fit. Post-hoc modifications improved fit, resulting in a 22-item, five-factor model. In Study 3, 467 Masters athletes responded to these 22 items reflecting perceptions of their coaches. CFA (CFI = .951, SRMR = .036, RMSEA = .049) and ESEM (CFI = .977, SRMR = .019, RMSEA = .041) confirmed the model. The resultant Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey provides a reliable and factorially valid instrument for measuring adult-oriented coaching practices.
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 1
1 Abstract
2 Adult sportspersons (Masters athletes, 35 + yrs) have unique coaching preferences (Callary,
3 Rathwell & Young, 2017). No existing resources provide coaches with feedback on their craft
4 with Masters athletes. Three studies evaluated an adult-oriented coaching survey. Study 1 vetted
5 the face validity of 50 survey items with 12 Masters coaches. Results supported the validity of 48
6 items. In Study 2, 383 Masters coaches completed the 50 items. Confirmatory factor analysis
7 (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) indicated issues with model fit.
8 Post-hoc modifications improved fit, resulting in a 22-item, five-factor model. In Study 3, 467
9 Masters athletes responded to these 22 items reflecting perceptions of their coaches. CFA (CFI =
10 .951, SRMR = .036, RMSEA = .049) and ESEM (CFI = .977, SRMR = .019, RMSEA = .041)
11 confirmed the model. The resultant Adult-Oriented Sport Coaching Survey provides a reliable
12 and factorially valid instrument for measuring adult-oriented coaching practices.
13 Keywords: Coaching; Andragogy; Masters athletes; Psychometrics 14151617
Page 1 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 2
18 Masters athletes (MAs) represent one of the fastest growing sport cohorts in the
19 Westernized world (Baker, Horton, & Weir, 2010). MAs are typically over 35 years of age,
20 formally registered for sport in some fashion, which may include registration to a sport club with
21 a coach, and acknowledge that they prepare via training for upcoming competitions (Young,
22 2011). MAs often train with coaches in heterogeneous groups, which may include participants of
23 various ages, abilities, and competitive levels within the same setting (Rathwell, Callary, &
24 Young, 2015). The International Sport Coaching Framework 1.2 (ISCF; ICCE, 2013), which
25 provides guidelines for coach learning globally, notes that coaches’ knowledge and approaches
26 should reflect the needs and motives of the people they coach in different sporting contexts.
27 Despite the ISCF’s recognition of adults as a significant group that is coached, there are very few
28 resources and a noticeable lack of coach education specific to Masters coaches (Callary,
29 Rathwell & Young, 2018).
30 Most of what is known about psychosocial approaches to coaching sport derives from
31 models within youth, adolescent, and emerging adult sport literature (e.g., Chelladurai, 2007;
32 Coté, Salmela, Trudel & Baria, 1995). Further, coach education programming is geared towards
33 younger athletes, with Masters coaches commenting that it lacks relevance for their context
34 (Callary et al., 2018). Callary et al. (2018) described how Masters coaches are relatively unaware
35 of the importance of developing specific psychosocial approaches for coaching MAs, but express
36 interest in gaining empirical information about the psychological and social nuances of coaching
37 middle-aged and older adults. This is problematic because no research-based tools exist to
38 assess, understand, and service Masters coach development as it pertains to the psychosocial
39 particularities of the adult sport context. As the number of MAs and Masters coaches increases, it
40 is imperative to (a) understand their distinct needs and (b) to validate commensurate assessment
Page 2 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 3
41 tools. This is essential because effective, contextually-sensitive coaching practices are associated
42 with enriched sport experiences, motivation, and retention among sport participants (ICCE,
43 2013).
44 Although no quantitative assessment tool exists for Masters coaches, a growing body of
45 qualitative research has explored coached adult contexts (e.g., Callary, Rathwell & Young, 2017;
46 Callary et al., 2018; Ferrari, Bloom, Gilbert & Caron, 2016; MacLellan, Callary & Young, 2018;
47 2019). Ferrari et al. (2016) found that Masters swimmers believed their coaches fostered social,
48 health, and performance benefits. Callary and colleagues explored competitive Masters swim
49 clubs to understand what Masters swimmers wanted, needed, and received from their coaches
50 (Callary, Rathwell & Young, 2015), and how coaches strategically structured the sport
51 environment for MAs (Callary et al., 2017). Generally, Masters swimmers and coaches believed
52 (a) MAs had unique coaching wants and needs compared to younger athletes, and (b) coaches
53 had to alter their strategies when working with them. The findings were upheld by MacLellan et
54 al. (2018; 2019), who noted differences in one canoe/kayak coach’s approaches with a group of
55 MAs compared to a group of youth, whereby the coach provided greater opportunities for self-
56 direction and questions with the adults while being more directed with the youth group.
57 Researchers (Callary et al., 2017; MacLellan et al., 2019; Young & Callary, 2018)
58 contend that our understanding of coaching MAs can be enhanced by examining adult-learning
59 principles, such as the andragogic tenets (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2012). Andragogic
60 conceptualizations posit that adults learn best in environments that foster self-directedness, draw
61 in adults’ prior experiences as a basis for learning, create opportunities for reflection, and allow
62 for collaborative problem-solving. Callary et al. (2017) described an alignment between
63 andragogy and how Masters coaches (a) enabled MAs’ self-direction, (b) explained why MAs
Page 3 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 4
64 were asked to perform particular skills or activities, (c) accounted for MAs’ prior experiences in
65 and out of sport when making decisions, (d) used a problem-oriented approach, (e) made
66 concerted efforts to ready their MAs to learn new skills, and (f) created intrinsically motivating
67 environments. MacLellan et al. (2018; 2019) further corroborated these findings, leading to the
68 advancement of an andragogic model for sport. In all, these qualitative works offer empirical-
69 based evidence legitimizing adult-oriented coaching approaches.
70 The need for a tool to assess adult-oriented coaching in sport
71 Self-report instruments are features of personal and more formalized coach development
72 strategies wherein coaches receive feedback from different sources, including data-based
73 sources, to deliberate upon and improve their craft (e.g., Hoffmann, Duguay, Guerrero,
74 Loughead & Munroe-Chandler, 2017). Callary and Young (2019) have advocated that the design
75 of professional development programs for Masters coaches should include coach self-report of
76 distinct features of coaching practice to precipitate a central reflection component, and ideally
77 athlete self-report on the same features to enrich the dialogue. To our knowledge, there has been
78 only one quantitative effort related to the development of such a coach-report tool (Rathwell,
79 Young, & Callary ,2017; Young, Rathwell & Callary, 2020). Specifically, a systematic review
80 was conducted on the adult education literature to identify an established instrument (i.e.,
81 Instructional Perspectives Inventory; Henschke, 1994), which had been used as a self-report tool
82 to assess instructors/coaches and learners in classroom, corporate and life coaching venues.
83 Unfortunately, this survey performed poorly on psychometric evaluations when administered to
84 Masters coaches, and did not capture the sport-specific context of adult-oriented coaching.
85 Young et al. (2020) concluded that future work needs to generate specifically from sport-
Page 4 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 5
86 sensitive inventories, and called for the development of a coach-report instrument that captures
87 the nuances, lexicon, and intonation of experiences in the Masters sport coaching context.
88 Purpose
89 The overall purpose of this three-study program was to generate a valid and reliable
90 survey to assess adult-oriented coaching practices used by coaches while working with MAs. In
91 Study 1, the authors generated a catalogue of items derived from qualitative findings in the
92 Masters sport context, that was intended to measure adult-oriented coaching practices. The
93 content of the items was then vetted by a sample of Masters coaches to ensure their applicability
94 to the Masters coaching context. In Study 2, the reliability and factorial validity of the vetted
95 items were tested with data from a large sample of Masters coaches and all problematic items
96 were removed. In Study 3, the factor structure determined in Study 2 was tested with an
97 independent sample of MAs. Together, these three studies sought to address a notable gap in the
98 literature by establishing a survey capable of assessing adult-oriented practices used when
99 coaching MAs.
100 Study 1: Creating Items and Establishing Face Validity with Coach Vetting
101 Study 1 occurred over two phases. In Phase 1, the authors borrowed from qualitative
102 work on Master athletics to generate a catalogue of items intended to measure adult-oriented
103 coaching practices used by Masters coaches. In Phase 2, face validity of the catalogue of items
104 was vetted by a sample of actively involved and invested Masters coaches from different sports.
105 Phase 1: Creating Items
106 Understanding the importance of contextually-sensitive survey items in developing a
107 coach-report instrument, the current authors drew from qualitative research findings on coached
108 Masters sport experiences that were grounded in analyses on adult learning principles. Themes in
Page 5 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 6
109 the sport-based research (e.g., Callary et al., 2015; Callary et al., 2017; MacLellan et al., 2018;
110 2019) illustrated content that was explicitly relevant to a Masters coach (e.g., nuances related to
111 motor learning, and readying athletes for competition), thus, was well suited for the design of a
112 survey that Masters coaches could use for self-assessment purposes. As such, an initial pool of
113 items was generated that captured adult-oriented coaching practices used by coaches who work
114 with MAs following DeVellis’ (2017) guidelines for scale development in applied social
115 research. The first three authors collaboratively designed and assessed the items concerning
116 adult-oriented coaching practices used with MAs, with each bringing their own expert
117 knowledge to the process. All three have a history of publishing in reputable journals on topics
118 related to coaching Masters sport.
119 Conceptual formulations. According to DeVellis (2017), when beginning survey/scale
120 development, it is essential to clearly define what one wishes to measure. The three senior
121 authors were interested in adult-oriented psychosocial coaching practices used with MAs. Thus,
122 in the spring of 2016, Callary et al.’s (2015) article was used as a guiding formulation for
123 deriving items related to strategies, attributes, and approaches for coaching MAs, because it
124 presented MAs’ lived experiences with coaches and detailed what MAs needed, received, and
125 wanted from their coaches.1 DeVellis (2017) recommends using theory and conceptual
126 formulations when developing a scale. Thus, Knowles et al.’s (2012) andragogy in practice
127 model was used to help frame this study; its six principles posit adults learn best in environments
128 that capitalize on (a) the learner’s need to know; (b) the self-concept of the learner; (c) prior
129 experiences of the learner; (d) orienting learning in personally-meaningful ways and in problem
130 solving; (e) diverse motives that adults have for learning; (f) strategies that consider an adult’s
1 Callary et al. (2015) was the only existing descriptive manuscript on this topic published in a peer-reviewed journal at the commencement of the research project in the spring of 2016.
Page 6 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 7
131 readiness to learn. Because preliminary findings in Masters sport had found grounding in
132 andragogic principles (e.g., MacLellan, Callary, & Young, 2015), the authors determined
133 Knowles et al.’s (2012) andragogic themes could supplement Callary et al.’s (2015) content.
134 Item generation. Devellis (2017) recommends authors create multiple items measuring
135 the same construct to improve internal consistency reliability while keeping the specific
136 measurement of conceptual formulations in mind. The three senior authors created operational
137 definitions for seven distinct themes derived from Callary et al.’s (2015) findings on what MAs
138 preferred from their coaches: (a) accumulated experience and professional development, (b)
139 preferred personal attributes of coaches, (c) coaching behaviours maximizing efficiency, (d)
140 feedback, (e) practice strategies, (f) structural elements of the program, and (g) interactions
141 related to competition. The second author then created one pool of 39 survey items comprising
142 statements to represent the breadth and depth of these seven themes. Using the same process, the
143 third author used Knowles et al.’s (2012) conceptualizations and their representations in sport
144 (e.g., Author citation, 2015; MacLellan et al., 2015) to generate a second pool comprising 29
145 items across the six andragogic principles (i.e., need to know, self-direction, life experiences,
146 readiness to learn, problem-centered orientation, motivated by internal cues). DeVellis (2017)
147 also recommends that researchers should simultaneously decide on the scale and time frame so
148 that the items and measurement constructs are compatible. The items for this study were
149 designed to be frequency-based and answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7
150 (always). To address time frame, we added the instruction, “Based on your current or recent
151 involvement coaching Masters sport, please rate the frequency at which you perform the
152 following statements.” See Table A in the supplemental material for the complete list of items
153 and a summary of all decisions by investigators throughout the entire validation process.
Page 7 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 8
154 After creating the two pools of items, steps were taken to ensure the quality of the
155 generated statements. With the operational definitions of themes and principles in hand, the three
156 senior researchers independently vetted each item and judged whether (a) it was easy to
157 understand, (b) was an important indicator of its respective theme, and (c) if it were used in a
158 survey, would it help us learn about adult-oriented coaching practices used with MAs? All
159 statements were judged on a 3-point Likert scale (1 agree, 2 somewhat agree, 3 disagree). Any
160 item that did not receive a score of 1 (agree) on all three questions posed from each researcher
161 was re-examined. Together, the senior authors rephrased unclear items and eliminated any
162 problematic items. In total, 11 items were removed from the first pool and three items were
163 removed from the second pool, resulting in 28 items derived from Callary et al.’s (2015)
164 qualitative manuscript on Masters coaching approaches and 24 items derived from andragogic
165 principles, respectively. Finally, the item pools were merged and checked for redundancies. Two
166 items were removed for being redundant, resulting in a final 50-item catalogue spanning 13
167 themes: preferred personal attributes of coaches; coaching behaviours maximizing efficiency;
168 feedback; practice strategies; structural elements of the program; interactions related to
169 competition; need to know, self-direction, life experiences, readiness to learn, problem-centered
170 orientation, motivated by internal cues. For a complete list of the 50 items see Appendix A.
171 Phase 2: Establishing Face Validity with Coach Vetting
172 Phase 2 tested the content validity of the 50-item catalogue created in Phase 1 by having
173 the content reviewed by experts (DeVellis, 2017). More specifically, we aimed to vet the face
174 validity of our catalogue of survey items with a sample of actively involved and invested Masters
175 coaches from different sports to get an informed perspective on their applicability to this
176 coaching context.
Page 8 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 9
177 Method.
178 Procedure. Upon receiving clearance from a university research ethics board, coaches
179 were recruited for this study via email in the summer of 2016. Coaches were identified from a
180 roster of former participants in our research program (who had consented to be contacted again)
181 or were identified from contact information hosted on Canadian Masters sport websites. Twenty-
182 six email invitations were initially sent to various coaches.
183 Participants. Twelve Masters coaches (four female, eight male) agreed to participate.
184 They ranged from 27 to 75 years old (M = 58.67, SD = 16.75) and had five to 55 years of
185 experience coaching MAs (M = 16.58, SD = 12.98). They coached, on average, 8.83 months of
186 the year (range = 3-12, SD = 3.25), for 8.13 hours per week (range = 2-20, SD = 4.64). These
187 coaches worked with recreational only to internationally competitive MAs, with MAs of
188 differing skill levels often training together within the same sessions. They represented different
189 sports (two athletics coaches, three lawn bowls coaches, two canoe/kayak coaches, and a coach
190 from race-walking, judo, triathlon, rowing, and alpine ski) and worked with MAs of varying
191 ages. Specifically, the coaches estimated that their MAs ranged from 40-70 years of age (Mage =
192 50.17, SD = 9.08).
193 Measures. Coaches were provided with an electronic copy of the 50 items and were
194 asked to judge the extent to which each item was “relevant for the coaching of Masters/adult
195 athletes” by responding with either ‘agree’, ‘somewhat agree’, ‘disagree’, or ‘don’t know
196 because the item doesn’t make sense or is awkward.’ Respondents were also invited to provide
197 feedback after each item. Participants returned their spreadsheet ratings and comments by email.
198 Results. Data were collated across all coaches and analyzed as frequencies. Responses
199 are displayed in Figure 1, showing the number of coaches out of 12 responding ‘agree’,
Page 9 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 10
200 ‘somewhat agree’, or problematic (i.e., this response category is the merging of ‘disagree’ with
201 ‘don’t know or is awkward to me’). In general, items were rated as relevant to coaching
202 Masters/adult athletes; for example, across all items, the average number of coaches rating
203 ‘agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’ on items was 11.22 out of 12 (range = 6-12, SD = 1.87). Individual
204 items were reviewed by the researchers if more than three coaches answered ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t
205 know or is awkward to me’. Accordingly, two items (item 19: Ask your adult athletes to relate
206 their training to concerns they are facing outside of sport, and item 47: Compete at the same
207 venue as your adult athletes) were flagged for review. During review, coaches’ feedback was
208 considered. Coaches explained these items were problematic because they “did not use these
209 behaviours”, not because they did not make sense or were not relevant. Considering that our
210 items were designed to be frequency-based (i.e., ‘never’ is a choice on the Likert scale) and there
211 is value in acquiring data indicating behaviours not applied by coaches, we recorded these items
212 as being potentially problematic but chose to keep them in the item pool and further test their
213 validity in future steps. No other items received ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know or is awkward to me’
214 ratings from more than two coaches.
215 Discussion. Study 1 attested to the face validity of 48 of the 50 items in our catalogue,
216 with impressive face validity judged by Masters coaches for items derived from Callary et al.
217 (2015) and for those representing content from andragogic principles in sport. Further content
218 validity is predicated on the establishment of construct validity, or structural/factorial validity.
219 As such, the next step in our survey validation process involved testing the fit and factor
220 structure of our catalogue using data from a large sample of Masters coaches (DeVellis, 2017).
221 Study 2: Testing the Factorial Validity of the Coach-Report Tool
Page 10 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 11
222 Study 2 tested the reliability and factorial validity of the 13 factors catalogue with data
223 from a large sample of Masters coaches.
224 Method
225 Procedure. After receiving institutional ethics clearance, Masters coaches were
226 contacted via recruitment emails in the fall of 2016 that had been forwarded to them by directors
227 of Masters sport organizations or through social media platforms governed by Masters sport
228 organizations. Recruitment information directed them to a SurveyMonkey online survey. A total
229 of 512 Masters coaches consented to participate, and 383 completed this study.
230 Participants. Of the 383 Masters coaches, 271 were female, 110 were male, and 2 did
231 not disclose their sex. Coaches ranged from 18 to 89 years old (Mage = 49.74 years, SD = 13.56)
232 and primarily worked with Masters golfers (58.2%) and swimmers (22.5%), with the remaining
233 19.3% working with various other MAs including but not limited to canoe/kayakers, track and
234 field athletes, skiers, and weightlifters/powerlifters. Although the participants reported coaching
235 their MAs across several competitive levels, their athletes’ highest competitive participation was
236 at international (28.9%), national (12.1%), provincial (18.6%), regional (21.5%), and recreational
237 (18.9%) levels. Most respondents coached in Canada (76.2%), with the remaining 23.8%
238 coaching in other countries (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia). They ranged
239 between one and 64 years of experience coaching MAs (Myears = 18.69, SD = 12.81).
240 Measures. The 50-item catalogue was used to assess Masters coaches’ perceptions of the
241 frequency with which they used adult-oriented coaching practices, with one small addition. At
242 this stage the ‘planning at the program level’ factor only had two items. Thus, a previously
243 deleted item (“Consider how to accommodate athletes in terms of programming, such as practice
244 or competitive schedules") was reclaimed to ensure a minimum of three items per factor to
Page 11 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 12
245 improve the reliability of the scale (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The coaches
246 responded to 51 items (see Appendix A) tapping into 13 factors (number of items per scale in
247 parentheses): accumulated experience and professional development (4); preferred personal
248 attributes of coaches (3); coaching behaviours maximizing efficiency (6); feedback (5); practice
249 strategies (3); structural elements of the program (3); interactions related to competition (4);
250 need to know (3); self-direction (3); life experiences (5); readiness to learn (4); problem-centered
251 orientation (4); motivated by internal cues (4). Coaches rated all items on a 7-point Likert scale
252 anchored at 1 (never) and 7 (always).
253 Data analysis. The primary analyses were performed using the Mplus latent variable
254 modeling program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) and were conducted using the robust
255 maximum likelihood estimator (MLR). MLR generates model fit statistics and standard errors
256 that are robust to non-normally distributed data. Exploratory structural equation modeling
257 (ESEM; Marsh et al., 2009) was used for the evaluation of latent variables. ESEM is a
258 contemporary method that allows items to load on unintended factors while still producing
259 model fit statistics. Oblique target rotation for our ESEM analyses were employed and ‘targeted’
260 unintended factor loadings were set to be near zero. Target rotation was chosen because it is
261 considered more effective than the commonly used geomin rotation for more complex models
262 (i.e., models containing three or more factors; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009), and there was
263 conceptual justification for our items loading on specific factors. The following criteria were also
264 used to assess item-level performance: items were required to have factor loadings ≥ .32 on their
265 intended factors and could not have cross-loadings ≥ .32 on unintended factors (Tabachnick &
266 Fidell, 2013). Various indices were considered for model fit: (a) chi-square (2), (b) normed chi-
267 square (χ²/df), (c) comparative fit index (CFI), (d) standardized root mean square residual
Page 12 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 13
268 (SRMR), and (e) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Of note, the 2 significance
269 model test has been criticized for being sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2010) and for being
270 unecessarily strict (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012). Thus, Hair et al.’s (2010) criteria were relied
271 upon primarily to indicate good model fit: χ2/df ≤ 5; CFI .90; SRMR .08; and RMSEA .05.
272 Additionally, once a final model was determined, Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analyses
273 (BCFA) were performed because they offer an alternative significance test. Specifically, BCFA
274 allowed for model testing using posterior predictive checking, which is less sensitive than 2
275 with regard to ignorable degrees of model misspecification (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012).
276 Results
277 Preliminary analyses. Inspection of the dataset revealed that 0.40% of the data were
278 missing. Replacing missing values is appropriate when less than 5% of the data are missing
279 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Missing data were treated with multiple imputations using an
280 expectation-maximization method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
281 ESEM. The 51-item, 13-factor model was tested with data from Masters coaches. Results
282 indicated good model fit: 2 (690) = 1089.985, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.58, CFI = .921, SRMR = .023,
283 RMSEA = .039 (90% CI = .034-.043). However, 19 items failed to load ≥ .32 on any factor, and
284 six items showed problematic cross-loadings (> .32 on a non-targeted factor). Despite having
285 good fit indices, results suggested the factor structure did not represent the coach data well and
286 post-hoc modification procedures were warranted.
287 ESEM post-hoc modifications. For the post-hoc modifications, the 23 items and seven
288 factor structures for the pool derived from Callary et al.’s (2015) qualitative themes for the
289 coached MA context were explored first. The rationale for exploring this factor structure,
290 independently, and before the structure for items derived from the andragogic pool, was twofold:
Page 13 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 14
291 (a) the 51 item, 13-factor item pool from Study 1 was initially composed from items derived
292 from two unique sources, and (b) independent analyses maximized the sample size to items ratio
293 for determining which items were problematic. After determining the factor structure of each
294 independent pool, the lists were merged and the factor structure was explored again.
295 Ensuring the integrity of the Callary et al. (2015) pool of items. A MLR estimator and
296 an oblique target rotation was used (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). The factor structure for all
297 23 items showed adequate fit on the seven factors: 2 (130) = 294.200, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.26, CFI
298 = .905, SRMR = .026, RMSEA = .057 (90% CI = .049-.066). However, 11 items failed to load ≥
299 .32 on any factor and five items had problematic cross-loadings (> 32). Results suggested the
300 structure was not well represented by the coach data, justifying exploratory analyses. A parallel
301 Monte Carlo analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) was used to determine the number of factors
302 to extract. Results showed the 23 items were best represented by two factors. ESEM with a MLR
303 estimator and an oblique geomin rotation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) was run. The 23 items
304 were free to load on both factors, meaning no targeted loadings were set. The 23 item, 2-factor
305 solution fell short of acceptable fit: 2 (208) = 409.639, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.97, CFI = .884, SRMR
306 = .046, RMSEA = .050 (90% CI = .043-.057). An iterative process of deleting problematic items
307 and re-assessing the factor structure was performed. Items were removed if they cross-loaded >
308 .32 on more than one factor or failed to load > .32 on any factor. The process resulted in five
309 items being removed (items 6, 8, 12, 13, and 16). The final 18-item 2-factor solution had
310 acceptable fit: 2 (118) = 262.96, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.23, CFI = .903, SRMR = .041, RMSEA =
311 .057 (90% CI = .047-.066) and no problematic items.
312 Ensuring the integrity of the andragogic-based pool of items. A MLR estimator and an
313 oblique target rotation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) was used to test 28 items representing six
Page 14 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 15
314 factors. Results suggested good fit: 2 (203) = 347.00, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.71, CFI = .936, SRMR
315 = .026, RMSEA = .043 (90% CI = .035-.051). However, 11 items did not load ≥ .32 on any
316 factor, 11 items had problematic cross-loadings, and three factors had less than three items with
317 primary loadings ≥ .32. Results justified exploratory analyses. A parallel Monte Carlo analysis
318 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) was used to determine the number of factors to extract, and results
319 suggested the 28 items were best represented by four factors. ESEM with a MLR estimator and
320 an oblique geomin rotation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) was used. The 28 items were free to
321 load on either of the four factors. The 28 item, 4-factor solution showed good fit: 2 (272) =
322 485.41, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.78, CFI = .906, SRMR = .038, RMSEA = .045 (90% CI = .039-.052).
323 However, seven items failed to load ≥ .32 on any factor and three items had problematic cross-
324 loadings. An iterative process of deleting problematic items and re-assessing the structure was
325 performed. Items were removed if they cross-loaded ≥ .32 on more than one factor or failed to
326 load ≥ .32 on any factor. Ten items were removed (items 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 48, 49, 50).
327 The final 18-item, 4-factor solution had no problematic items and had acceptable fit: 2 (87) =
328 179.74, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.07, CFI = .927, SRMR = .033, RMSEA = .053 (90% CI = .042-.064).
329 Merging the pools into one catalogue and checking the integrity of the model. The two
330 refined item pools were re-combined. The new 36-item six-factor solution was explored using
331 ESEM with a MLR estimator and an oblique target rotation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017).
332 Items were targeted to their representative factors from the independent analyses. The model had
333 adequate fit to the data: 2 (429) = 746.86, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.74, CFI = .899, SRMR = .033,
334 RMSEA = .044 (90% CI = .039-.049). However, five items failed to load > .32 on any factor,
335 and five items had problematic cross-loadings. An iterative process of deleting problematic items
Page 15 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 16
336 and re-assessing the factor structure was performed. Seven items and one factor were deleted.
337 The factor was removed for failing to retain a minimum of three items (Hair et al., 2010).
338 At this time, a 29-item, 5-factor model showed good fit statistics, 2 (271) = 518.88, p <
339 .001, χ²/df = 1.91, CFI = .902, SRMR = .034, RMSEA = .049 (90% CI = .042-.055), but much of
340 the modifications had been data-driven. Within this more data-driven process, several factors had
341 been lost, and because each item was allowed to be freely estimated in portions of the trimming
342 process, items from different factors were combined to create new ones. Thus, it was important
343 to re-examine the items to ensure they were conceptually consistent (i.e., each item represented
344 the same new theme).
345 Conceptual verification and final measurement model fit. The first three authors
346 independently examined each factor and their respective items and flagged any item that was not
347 consistent with the theme. Responses were collated and any item flagged by all three researchers
348 was removed. In total, five items (items 1, 5, 11, 20, and 43) were removed. Finally, it was
349 important to test whether the conceptual trimming caused statistical issues with the structure. The
350 24-item, 5-factor model was tested using a MLR estimator and an oblique target rotation
351 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Results showed good fit: 2 (166) = 278.72, p < .001, χ²/df =
352 1.68, CFI = .940, SRMR = .029, RMSEA = .042 (90% CI = .033-.051). One problematic cross-
353 loading was found (item 32). After removing it, the model was re-tested and had good fit: 2
354 (148) = 246.35, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.66, CFI = .942, SRMR = .029, RMSEA = .042 (90% CI =
355 .032-.051). This time, one item (item 23) failed to load on its target factor ≥ .32 and was
356 removed. A final 22-item, 5-factor model was tested and results showed good fit: 2 (131) =
357 202.56, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.55, CFI = .956, SRMR = .027, RMSEA = .038 (90% CI = .027-.048).
358 The factor names, descriptive statistics, construct reliability (CR) scores, and latent factor
Page 16 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 17
359 correlations (after post-hoc modifications) are in Table 2. CR scores indicated adequate internal
360 consistency for three factors (range: 60 to .62) and strong internal consistency (>.7) for two
361 factors (Hair et al., 2010). Table 3 reports all loadings associated with this final ESEM factor
362 structure. No problematic loadings existed. Appendix B lists the 22 items included in this final
363 version. We hereafter refer to this resultant model and its associated items as the Adult-Oriented
364 Sport Coaching Survey (AOSCS).
365 BCFA. Importantly, the significant 𝜒2 test for the ESEM, 𝜒2 (131) = 202.56, p < .001,
366 was concerning since it signaled potential misspecification in the final model, despite having
367 encouraging approximate fit indices. As such, a supplementary test was employed using BCFA
368 (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012) with approximate-zero prior distributions for constrained
369 parameters (cross-loadings + error covariances). After 10 000 iterations, the highest potential
370 scale reduction (PSR) in the model estimation was 1.030 (which did not increase with additional
371 iterations tested) indicating appropriate convergence of the simulation. Likewise, the highest
372 PSR for computing the prior posterior predictive p-value (PPPP) was PSR = 1.007, which
373 indicated that the MCMC iterations for estimation of the minor parameters appropriately
374 converged. After confirming that the estimation converged, we evaluated the model fit using
375 posterior predictive checking (PPC). The 95% CI of the difference between the observed and
376 model-generated 𝜒2 values included zero (−81.804-51.035), and the posterior predictive p-value
377 (PPP) was 0.68. Based on this information, we concluded that the model fits the data well. The
378 PPPP was 1.000, which indicated that we could not reject the hypothesis that our estimates in our
379 model were outside the N(0, 0.01) distribution. Similar to our ESEM analysis, theses results
380 showed that all the target factor loadings (i.e., the factor loading of each item to its underlying
381 factor) were statistically significant and greater than the conventional cut-off point of 0.32. No
Page 17 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 18
382 cross-loadings were statistically significant or greater than .32. All error covariances were small
383 and non-significant, except for one error covariance that was small but significant between two
384 items in the first factor (0.147). The results from this BCFA supported the results of the
385 approximate fit indices in our ESEM analysis, attesting that the final model is a good fit.
386 Discussion
387 We explored the factorial validity of the AOSCS using a large sample of Masters
388 coaches’ responses. Ultimately, pools of items that assessed coaching practices derived from
389 qualitative research in the coached Masters context (Callary et al., 2015) and andragogic
390 principles in sport (Callary, MacLellan et al., 2015; MacLellan et al., 2015), were refined
391 through independent analyses and then re-combined. Rigorous steps ensured that this merged
392 catalogue of items met criteria for factorial validity, yet still encapsulated adult-oriented
393 practices in coaching Masters sport. The AOSCS comprised the following factors:
394 1) Considering the individuality of athletes (4 items) assesses the frequency at which a
395 coach considers and tailors his/her approach to each adult athlete’s experiences and
396 motives in the planning, organization, and delivery of practice.
397 2) Framing learning situations (7 items) refers to the frequency at which a coach frames
398 learning situations for his/her adult athletes through self-discovery, problem-based
399 scenarios, modeling, and assessments.
400 3) Imparting coaching knowledge (3 items) refers to the frequency at which a coach
401 shares his/her own relevant athletic experience, coaching knowledge, and professional
402 coaching development.
403 4) Respecting preferences for effort, accountability and feedback (3 items) assesses how
404 frequently a coach adapts his/her approach to consider how each adult athlete wishes to
Page 18 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 19
405 be held accountable for working hard and giving effort, and how they wish to receive
406 feedback at practice
407 5) Creating personalized programming (5 items) is the frequency at which a coach
408 considers and tailors aspects of scheduling (practices and competitions), season-long
409 programming, and support at competitions, to an adult athlete's needs and abilities.
410 Study 3: Corroborating Construct Validity Based on Athletes’ Report
411 The purpose of Study 3 was to cross-check our findings from Study 2 with an
412 independent sample (DeVellis, 2017). An independent confirmatory sample is important because
413 it is possible during the modification process to capitalize on unstable chance-based factors when
414 determining the fit and factor structure of the model. With an independent sample, no such
415 chance exists because the data from the confirmatory sample did not influence which items were
416 trimmed or retained. Therefore, we aimed to replicate the factor structure of the AOSCS with a
417 sample of MAs who provided data on their coaches in Study 3.
418 Method
419 Procedure. Following institutional ethics clearance, MAs were recruited via email in the
420 summer and fall of 2018 and winter of 2019. Emails were forwarded to participants by directors
421 of Masters sport organizations and via their social media platforms. Recruitment information
422 linked to a SurveyMonkey survey. In total, 874 MAs consented to participate, and 736
423 completed this study. We removed 248 MAs because they did not meet the inclusion criterion of
424 reporting they had a coach. We deleted 21 more participants who did not meet the inclusion
425 criteria for classification as MAs (Young et al., 2011) for being less than 35 years-old and/or
426 indicating that they trained zero times weekly (i.e., did not intentionally prepared to compete).
Page 19 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 20
427 Participants. There were 467 MAs (274 females, 190 males, three undisclosed; Mage =
428 56.69 years, range = 35-87, SD = 10.95) who reported having a coach, whose primary sports
429 were swimming (49.7%), track and field (10.5%) and cross-country running (9.9%), and various
430 others such as triathlon, speed skating, and cycling (remaining 29.9%). They were primarily
431 Canadian (72.4%) and American (17.3%), with several countries in the remaining 10.3%. The
432 sample was predominantly Caucasian (92.9%). MAs reported competing across several
433 competitive levels, but their highest competitive participation was at international (33.1%),
434 national (26.2%), provincial (12.0%), regional (12.0%), and recreational (16.6%) levels. MAs
435 trained/practiced, on average, 4.42 times per week (range = 1-20, SD = 2.07), of which 2.59
436 times per week (range = 1-10, SD = 1.71) were spent training/practicing in the presence of a
437 dedicated coach.
438 Measures. MAs’ perceptions of the frequency with which they felt their coaches used
439 adult-oriented coaching practices were assessed via a slightly modified version of the AOSCS
440 (see Appendix C in supplementary material). The AOSCS items from Study 2 were ‘flipped’
441 such that the stem preceding each item was “My coach/instructor…”.
442 Data analysis. Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) was used to test the fit and factor
443 structure with both ESEM and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures. Marsh et al.
444 (2014) recommended using both ESEM and CFA and comparing the results for confirmatory
445 analyses. A MLR estimator for the ESEM and the CFA, and the same model fit criteria and the
446 same criteria to judge item-level performance in ESEM as described in Study 2 was used.
447 Results
Page 20 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 21
448 Preliminary analyses. Inspection of the dataset revealed that 0.98% of the data were
449 missing. Missing data were treated with multiple imputations using an expectation-maximization
450 method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
451 ESEM. The 5-factor ESEM model had excellent fit, 2 (131) = 234.89, p < .001, χ²/df =
452 1.79, CFI = .977, SRMR = .019, RMSEA = .041(90% CI = .033-.050). All items had loadings ≥
453 .32 on intended factors, and no problematic cross-loadings. Descriptive statistics, internal
454 consistencies and latent factor correlations for the AOSCS factors are in Table 2. All CR scores
455 were > .698 suggesting strong internal consistency. All factor loadings are in Table 4.
456 CFA. The 5-factor CFA model produced excellent fit statistics, 2 (199) = 436.69, p <
457 .001, χ²/df = 2.19, CFI = .951, SRMR = .036, RMSEA = .049 (90% CI = .043-.056). All items
458 had loadings ≥ .32 on their intended factors (right-most column in Table 4).
459 BCFA. Once again, the significant 2 tests results for the ESEM analysis, 2 (131) =
460 234.89, p < .001, and CFA, 2 (199) = 436.69, p < .001, suggested potential misspecification. As
461 such, a supplementary test was employed using BCFA with approximate-zero prior distributions
462 for cross-loadings and error covariances. After 10 000 iterations, the highest PSR in the model
463 estimation was 1.043 (which did not increase when tested with additional iterations tested)
464 indicating appropriate convergence of the simulation. Likewise, the highest PSR for computing
465 the PPPP was PSR = 1.016, which indicated that the MCMC iterations for estimation of the
466 minor parameters appropriately converged. After confirming that the estimation converged, we
467 evaluated the model fit using PPC. The 95% CI of the difference between the observed and
468 model-generated 𝜒2 values included zero (−64.583, 38.931), and the PPP was 0.755. Based on
469 this information, we concluded that the model fits the data well. The PPPP was 0.998, which
470 indicated that we could not reject the hypothesis the estimates in our model were outside the N(0,
Page 21 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 22
471 0.01) distribution. The results also showed that all the major/target factor loadings were
472 statistically significant and greater than the conventional cut-off point of 0.32. None of the cross-
473 factor loadings were statistically significant or greater than .32. With regard to error covariances,
474 only 12 of the 231 were significant and all 12 were small loadings. BCFA results supported our
475 previous findings from the ESEM analysis and the CFA that the final model fits the data well.
476 General Discussion
477 This investigation aimed to establish a survey capable of assessing adult-oriented practices
478 used when coaching MAs. Via three studies, we followed DeVellis’ (2017) guidelines to (a)
479 create items that were conceptually informed by andragogic principles and by sport-specific
480 themes for coaching MAs, (b) find evidence for the face validity of the items by having coaches
481 confirm their relevance, (c) determine a factor structure for the AOSCS using a sample of
482 Masters coaches, and (d) confirm the factor structure of the AOSCS using an independent
483 sample of MAs while demonstrating good internal consistency reliability.
484 Emergent literature underscores there may be particularly nuanced ways of approaching
485 sport coaching with adult sportspersons (Callary et al., 2015), and growing qualitative evidence
486 suggests andragogic principles might be more effective when working with adult athletes
487 (Callary et al., 2017; MacLellan et al., 2019). However, until now, it has been impossible to
488 quantitatively test these hypotheses due to the absence of a valid assessment tool. The advent of
489 the AOSCS is timely given recent interest and offers the only validated scale that specifically
490 targets coaching principles oriented towards adult athletes and adult learning in sport.
491 Recent research attempted to derive a coaching self-assessment instrument from the field
492 of adult education and tested it in the coaching domain (Young et al., 2020). However, there
493 were problems with the face validity and factor structure of that survey. Its constituent items
Page 22 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 23
494 taken from the parallel domain of adult learning proved inappropriate for measuring coaches’ use
495 of adult-oriented learning principles. These findings appeared somewhat counterintuitive to the
496 existing body of qualitative sport research, which highlights synergies between andragogic
497 principles and the actions and strategies that Masters coaches employ with adult athletes (Callary
498 et al., 2017; MacLellan et al., 2018; 2019). Addressing this, Young et al. (2020) disclosed that
499 the language of items imported from adult education (i.e., a non-motor, non-competitive domain)
500 was not sufficiently contextually-sensitive to capture the nuances in the domain of adult sport.
501 Our research was predicated on the notion that a quantitative tool embodying sport, particularly
502 adult learning in Masters sport, may have superior integrity. In the development of the AOSCS, a
503 balance between content informed by qualitative findings related to Masters coaches’ behaviours
504 and strategies (Callary et al., 2015) and findings for how Knowles et al.’s (2012) andragogic
505 principles have been represented in the coaching of MAs was sought (Callary et al., 2017;
506 MacLellan et al., 2018; 2019). This content merged in the final structure of the AOSCS.
507 Through three studies, we established foundational evidence for the reliability and
508 validity of the AOSCS. Notably, within the process, many items were eliminated and several
509 themes from two catalogues of items were merged. We thus put forth that the AOSCS is not a
510 direct measure of andragogic principles within the adult sport context. Instead, the AOSCS
511 should be considered an assessment tool of adult-oriented coaching practices specific to (a)
512 planning, organization, and delivering practices that are tailored to adult athlete’s experiences
513 and motives, (b) framing learning situations through athlete-discovery, problem-based scenarios,
514 modeling, and assessment, (c) enriching the learning environment by sharing relevant athletic
515 experience, coaching knowledge, and professional coaching development, (d) adapting
Page 23 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 24
516 approaches to respect how each adult wishes to be held to account for giving effort, and their
517 feedback preferences, and (e) tailoring scheduling according to athletes’ needs and abilities.
518 There are appreciable aspects to the content of the retained items. The wording of many
519 items captures inherent aspects of sport such as the use of performance assessments (e.g., time
520 trials) and competitive opportunities at practice, managing vicarious influences from other
521 peers/competitors, support at competitions, and tailoring both practice and competitive
522 scheduling to adults’ needs. The AOSCS also retained themes from Callary et al. (2015).
523 Specifically, how Masters swimmers judged coach credibility based on attributes related to
524 knowledge, rich athletic experiences, and professional development. Items also embody MAs’
525 preferences for coaches who craft intellectually stimulating practices (e.g., asking athletes to
526 relate drills to problems they are trying to remedy in their performance) and who maintain a
527 climate of accountability by organizing the practice, monitoring and holding athletes to a
528 standard for effort, and using time effectively (Callary et al., 2015). Many items assess processes
529 of individualization and tailoring to adults’ needs (especially their self-directedness and personal
530 motives). Others assess approaches that encourage bidirectional communication (e.g., asking
531 questions to adults, listening) between coaches and MAs, and the relinquishing of coach control
532 in deference to athlete self-discovery. These latter themes were all at the fore in MacLellan et
533 al.’s (2018; 2019) case study of a coach’s tailored approaches to adult paddlers, and have found
534 representation in our AOSCS. Altogether, many of the items, although regrouped under factor
535 names specific to our instrument, capture essential aspects of andragogic principles (Callary et
536 al., 2017. For these reasons, the AOSCS provides an assessment of adult-oriented coaching
537 principles derived from a blend of qualitative research findings that attested to pertinent
538 approaches to coaching MAs and andragogic practices in sport.
Page 24 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 25
539 Future Directions and Limitations
540 The advent of the AOSCS will allow future studies to test the proposition that an adult-
541 oriented approach, or specific adult-oriented facets (subscales), are related to quality sport
542 experiences for MAs. Further validation will be predicated on showing relationships between
543 AOSCS scores and athletes’ reports for key criterion variables, in diverse adult sport settings,
544 different levels of competitiveness, and as a function of MAs’ and coaches’ characteristics.
545 Research may test whether AOSCS scores associate with athletes’ liking of their coach, beliefs
546 about their coach’s teaching ability, desire to play for the coach (Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1979),
547 enjoyment of sport, and resolve to continue sport (Gardner, Magee & Vella, 2016). Future work
548 might determine how AOSCS scores relate to athletes’ satisfaction/thwarting of basic needs
549 (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003), and especially autonomy support (Hoffmann, Young, Rathwell, &
550 Callary, 2020), as such criterion measures associate with self-determined motivation and
551 enhanced sport experiences among younger cohorts. In light of literature noting social
552 development through adult sport (Gayman, Fraser-Thomas, Dionigi, Horton & Baker, 2017),
553 researchers might examine associations between AOSCS scores and relatedness support to infer
554 coaches’ roles in facilitating social connections. Examining measures as a function of AOSCS
555 factors is a next step in establishing criterion validity.
556 Future research may also examine if coach and athlete self-reported congruency is
557 important in terms of how AOSCS facets mediate key criterion outcomes. Several cognitive-
558 mediational leadership models in sport coaching posit that athlete outcomes are enhanced when
559 coaching actions align with athlete perceptions of those actions (e.g., Chelladurai, 2007; Smith &
560 Smoll, 1989). Under this premise, one may hypothesize that when there is congruency between
561 coach- and athlete-reports, athletes’ evaluations will be more favourable. Examining the average
Page 25 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 26
562 perceptions of our coaches and MAs in Study 2 and 3 respectively, we note that coaches and
563 MAs generally reported levels in a relatively similar fashion across subscales: considering
564 individuality of athletes, coach M = 6.09, range = 2.75-7.00, SD = 0.85, athlete M = 4.92, range =
565 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.63; framing learning situations, coach M = 5.43, range = 2.29-7.00, SD =
566 0.90, athlete M = 4.42, range = 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.30; imparting coaching knowledge, coach M =
567 5.65, range = 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.02, athlete M = 5.09, range = 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.56; respecting
568 preferences for effort, accountability and feedback, coach M = 5.81, range = 3.33-7.00, SD =
569 0.93, M = 5.18, range = 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.43; creating personalized programming, coach M =
570 5.34, range = 1.66-7.00, SD = 1.16, M = 4.69, range = 1.00-7.00, SD = 1.63. However, coaches
571 generally reported higher levels for all AOSCS facets, and MAs’ showed more variability. The
572 caveat in inspecting these data is that the samples were unaffiliated. Future work might test the
573 proposition that the value of AOSCS in explaining criterion outcomes for athletes might depend
574 on a level of congruence between what coaches are saying they are doing and what athletes are
575 saying they are receiving, using matched coach-athlete samples.
576 We were limited in not being able to recruit enough Masters coaches to split our sample
577 into an exploratory and confirmatory sample in Study 2. Thus, the factorial validity and
578 reliability of the AOSCS structure should be replicated in the future with independent coach
579 samples. Nonetheless, results from our athlete sample were encouraging considering we found
580 good fit with no required modifications. Having an athlete version offers certain advantages in
581 future. Specifically, gaining insights from both athletes and coaches in the same study can help
582 guard against social desirability (Brenner & DeLamater, 2014), which may provide more
583 compelling evidence for the use of AOSCS practices in Masters sport. Another limitation was we
584 did not provide evidence of predictive/nomological validity for the AOSCS. Researchers are
Page 26 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 27
585 encouraged to explore the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between AOSCS factors
586 and criterion measures of quality coaching, coach-athlete relationships, and quality adult sport
587 experiences. It is also important to consider that the original content informing AOSCS factors
588 was constrained to themes found in prior qualitative studies on coached Masters sport (Callary et
589 al., 2015; 2017; MacLellan et al., 2018; 2019). Thus, the AOSCS may be missing some adult-
590 oriented behaviours. Finally, Masters athletics in general has been criticized for being a leisure
591 pursuit for only those who are socio-economically privileged (Dionigi & Litchfield, 2018).
592 Likewise, our results were derived from relatively homogenous groups of coaches and athletes
593 from westernized countries that were predominantly Caucasian. Although the current samples
594 used in this study are representative of typical MAs, future research should continue to test
595 whether the reliability and validity of the AOSCS changes as Masters athletics grows and
596 becomes more inclusive.
597 In sum, three studies provided evidence for the validity and reliability of the AOSCS. The
598 AOSCS can serve as a valuable self-assessment tool for coaches working with adult athletes,
599 whereby coaches can acquire information pertaining to their use of adult oriented practices.
600 Researchers can use the tool to assess the degree to which coaches use adult-oriented coaching
601 facets with MAs, as well as test their associations with quality sport experiences for adults across
602 different sports, competitive levels, and coaching contexts.
Page 27 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 28
603 References
604 Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural
605 Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204.
606 Baker, J., Horton, S., & Weir, P. L. (2010). The Masters athlete: Understanding the role of sport
607 and exercise in optimizing aging. London, England: Routledge.
608 Brenner, P. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2014). Social desirability bias in self-reports of physical
609 activity: Is an exercise identity the culprit? Social Indicators Research, 117, 489-504.
610 doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0359-y
611 Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2015). Masters swimmers’ experiences with coaches:
612 What they want, what they need, what they get. SAGE Open, 5, 1-14.
613 doi:10.1177/2158244015588960
614 Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. (2017). Alignment of masters swim coaches’ approaches
615 with the andragogy in practice model. International Sport Coaching Journal, 4, 177-190.
616 doi:10.1123/iscj.2016-0102
617 Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2018). Coach education and learning sources for
618 coaches of Masters swimmers. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5, 47-59.
619 doi:10.1123/iscj.2017-0056
620 Callary, B., & Young, B. W. (2019). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: Using
621 adult learning principles to synergize coach education and coaching practices in Masters
622 sport. In B. Callary & B. Gearity (Eds.), Coach education and development in sport:
623 Instructional strategies (pp. 215-225). London, England: Routledge.
624 Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
625 of sport psychology (pp. 111-135). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Willey.
Page 28 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 29
626 Coté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., & Baria, A. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded
627 assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise
628 Psychology, 9, 76-95.
629 DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London, England:
630 SAGE.
631 Dionigi, R.A., & Litchfield, C. (2018). The mid-life ‘market’ and the creation of sporting
632 subcultures. In R. A. Dionigi & M. Gard (Eds.), Sport and physical activity across the
633 lifespan: Critical perspectives (pp. 283-300). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
634 Ferrari, G., Bloom, G. A., Gilbert, W. D., & Caron, J. G. (2016). Experiences of competitive
635 masters swimmers: Desired coaching characteristics and perceived benefits. International
636 Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 409-422.
637 doi:10.1080/1612197X.2015.1114504
638 Gardner, L. A., Magee, C. A., & Vella, S. A. (2016). Social climate profiles in adolescent sports:
639 Associations with enjoyment and intention to continue. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 112-
640 123. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.08.003.
641 Gayman, A. M., Fraser-Thomas, J., Dionigi, R. A., Horton, S., & Baker, J. (2017). Is sport good
642 for older adults? A systematic review of psychosocial outcomes of older adults’ sport
643 participation. International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 164-185.
644 doi:10.1080/1750984X.2016.1199046
645 Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
646 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
647 Henschke, J. (1994, November). Challenge and change. In C. Polson and F. Schied (Eds.),
648 Commission of Professors of Adult Education. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
Page 29 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 30
649 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Commission of Professors of Adult
650 Education, Nashville, Tennessee.
651 Hoffmann, M. D., Duguay, A. M., Guerrero, M. D., Loughead, T. M. & Munroe-Chandler, K. J.
652 (2017). 360-degree feedback for sport coaches: A follow-up to Boyle (2014). International
653 Sport Coaching Journal, 4, 335-344. doi: 10.1123/iscj.2017-0063.
654 Hoffmann, M. D., Young, B. W., Rathwell, S., & Callary, B. (2020). Comparing Masters athletes
655 with varying degrees of coaching for psychological need satisfaction and frustration.
656 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 15, 3-8.
657 doi:10.1177/1747954119887300
658 ICCE Association of Summer Olympic International Federations & Leeds Beckett University.
659 (2013). International sport coaching framework (version 1.2). Champaign, Illinois: Human
660 Kinetics.
661 Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
662 York, New York: The Guilford Press.
663 Knowles, M., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2012). The adult learner (7th ed.). New York,
664 New York: Routledge.
665 MacLellan, J., Callary, B., & Young, B. W. (2015, November). Can andragogy inform “best
666 practice” strategies for coaches of Masters athletes? Paper presented at the meeting of
667 Petro Canada Sport Leadership Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
668 MacLellan, J., Callary, B., & Young, B. W. (2018). Same coach, different approach? How
669 Masters and youth athletes perceive learning opportunities in training. International
670 Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13, 167-178. doi: 10.1177/1747954117727202.
Page 30 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 31
671 MacLellan, J., Callary, B., & Young, B. W. (2019). Adult learning principles in masters sport: A
672 coach's perspective. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 31, 31-50.
673 Mageau, G., Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model.
674 Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883–904. doi: 10.1080/0264041031000140374.
675 Marsh, H.W, Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A.J., & Trautwein,
676 U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application
677 to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439-476.
678 doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
679 Muthén, B. O, & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible
680 representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313-335. doi:
681 10.1037/a0026802
682 Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles,
683 California.
684 Rathwell, S., Callary, B., & Young, B. W. (2015). Exploring the context of coached Masters
685 swim programs: A narrative approach. International Journal of Aquatic Research &
686 Education, 9, 70-88. doi: 10.1123/ijare.2014-0068.
687 Rathwell, S., Young, B. W., & Callary, B. (2017). Preliminary investigation of the validity of the
688 instructional perspective inventory with an international sample of Masters coaches. Journal
689 of Exercise, Movement, & Sport (Psychomotor Learning Abstracts), 49(1), 123.
690 Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and
691 research paradigm. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.
Page 31 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 32
692 Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-
693 behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport
694 Psychology, 1, 59-75.
695 Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
696 Massachusetts: Pearson.
697 Young, B. W. (2011). Psycho-social perspectives on the motivation and commitment of Masters
698 athletes. In N. L. Holt & M. Talbot (Eds.), Lifelong engagement in sport and physical
699 activity (pp. 125-138). London, England: Routledge & ICSSPE.
700 Young, B. W., & Callary, B. (2018). Doing “more for adult sport”: Promotional and
701 programmatic efforts to offset adults’ psychosocial obstacles. In R. Dionigi & M. Gard
702 (Eds.), Sport and physical activity across the lifespan (pp. 263-282). London, Enlgand:
703 Palgrave Macmillan.
704 Young, B. W., Callary, B., & Niedre, P. C. (2014). Exploring novel considerations for the
705 coaching of masters athletes. International Sport Coaching Journal, 1, 86-93. doi:
706 10.1123/iscj.2014-0052
707 Young, B. W., Rathwell, S., & Callary, B. (2020). Testing a coaching assessment tool derived
708 from adult education in adult sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 47, 101632.
709 .org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.
Page 32 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 33
Figure 1. Frequency Counts Representing Responses from 12 Coaches for the 50 Numbered Items in the Survey Inventory in
Study 1.
Note. Numbered items on the x-axis can be found in Appendix A.
Page 33 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 34
Table 2. ESEM Latent Factor Correlations, Internal Consistencies and Descriptive Statistics for
Study 2 (Masters Coaches Sample) and Study 3 (Masters Athletes Sample).
Factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Considering the Individuality of Athletes (.62)
(.83).10 .33** .11 .36**
2. Framing Learning Situations .64*(.71)
(.82).31** .53** .52**
3. Imparting Coaching Knowledge .49* .72*(.62)
(.82).22* .40**
4. Respecting Preferences for Effort, Accountability and Feedback .47* .58* .47*
(.60)
(.69).43**
5. Creating Personalized Programming .62* .71* .61* .58*(.80)
(.87)Skewness (Coach Sample; Study 2) -1.13 -.53 -1.09 -.49 -.78
Kurtosis (Coach Sample; Study 2) 1.42 .07 2.00 -.61 .41
M (Coach Sample; Study 2) 6.09 5.43 5.65 5.81 5.34
SD (Coach Sample; Study 2) .85 .90 1.02 .93 1.16
Skewness (Athlete Sample; Study 3) -.61 -.20 -.74 -.81 -.50
Kurtosis (Athlete Sample; Study 3) -.47 -.33 -.28 .32 -.55
M (Athlete Sample; Study 3) 4.92 4.42 5.09 5.18 4.69
SD (Athlete Sample; Study 3) 1.63 1.30 1.56 1.43 1.63
Note. Internal consistencies (construct reliability) are on the diagonal. Subscale scores range
from 1 (never) to 7 (always). *p < .05, **p < .01. Score reflecting the coach sample are found on
top right portion of the correlation matrix, while the scores for the athlete sample are found on
bottom left.
Page 34 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 35
Table 3. ESEM Factor Structure for the 22-item, 5-Factor Model in Study 2 (Masters Coaches).
Items 1 3 3 4 5 R2
Considering the Individuality of Athletes (CIA)
CIA1. (3) .50 .03 .05 .04 .02 .29
CIA2. (4) .69 .07 -.03 -.16 .05 .49
CIA3. (5) .46 -.02 -.03 .19 .10 .31
CIA4. (6) .41 -.12 .06 .19 .20 .33
Framing Learning Situations (FLS)
FLS1. (1) .02 .45 .02 .17 -.05 .29
FLS2. (2) .13 .49 .06 -.04 .03 .30
FLS3. (7) -.26 .51 -.00 .17 .12 .49
FLS4. (8) -.00 .37 .13 .05 .13 .29
FLS5. (9) .29 .48 .11 .02 -.13 .33
FLS6. (10) -.02 .57 .04 .05 .05 .42
FLS7. (11) -.11 .44 .00 .05 .16 .31
Imparting Coaching Knowledge (ICK)
ICK1. (12) -.02 .06 .76 .01 -.05 .57
ICK2. (13) .02 .12 .59 -.14 .01 .38
ICK3. (14) -.06 .02 .36 .17 .17 .28
Respecting Preferences for Effort, Accountability and Feedback (RPEAF)
RPEAF1. (15) .00 .08 .03 .67 -.03 .50
RPEAF2. (16) .01 .31 -.03 .43 .00 .41
RPEAF3. (17) .15 .10 .03 .50 .07 .41
Creating Personalized Programming (CPP)
CPP1. (18) .01 -.06 .04 .18 .57 .43
CPP2. (19) .13 -.02 .15 -.02 .59 .51
CPP3. (20) .04 .29 -.19 -.06 .66 .59
CPP4. (21) .10 -.12 .11 .02 .73 .59
CPP5. (22) -.05 .06 -.02 -.15 .66 .39
Note. Factor loadings are standardized. Values loading on their intended factors are in bold. Item
numbers corresponding with those found in the Appendix A are listed inside brackets.
Page 35 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 36
Table 4. ESEM and CFA Factor Structure for the 22-item, 5-Factor Model in Study 3 (Masters
Athletes).
Items 1 2 3 4 5 R2 CFA
Considering the Individuality of Athletes (CIA)
CIA1 (3) .55 .11 .05 .17 .06 .64 .81
CIA2 (4) .72 .06 .11 .06 -.02 .70 .82
CIA3 (5) .72 .12 .07 -.05 .06 .74 .83
CIA4 (6) .49 .03 .07 .14 .23 .66 .82
Framing Learning Situations (FLS)
FLS1 (1) .14 .78 -.08 .17 -.27 .56 .69
FLS2 (2) .11 .53 -.10 .03 .15 .45 .67
FLS3 (7) -.16 .65 .13 .06 -.03 .45 .63
FLS4 (8) -.14 .56 .01 .15 .06 .40 .63
FLS5 (9) .16 .56 -.01 -.09 .10 .48 .70
FLS6 (10) .23 .52 .01 -.21 .12 .47 .66
FLS7 (11) -.16 .47 .17 -.10 .17 .36 .56
Imparting Coaching Knowledge (ICK)
ICK1. (12) .15 -.02 .82 -.07 -.07 .66 .77
ICK2 (13) -.04 .02 .71 .10 .09 .68 .84
ICK3 (14) .00 .05 .67 .11 -.02 .57 .77
Respecting Preferences for Effort, Accountability and Feedback (RPEAF)
RPEAF1 (15) .13 -.04 .09 .60 .17 .68 .79
RPEAF2 (16) -.02 .16 .07 .60 .08 .62 .73
RPEAF3 (17) .25 .15 .14 .33 .14 .68 .86
Creating Personalized Programming (CPP)
CPP1 (18) .15 .10 .07 .25 .42 .68 .84
CPP2 (19) .01 -.03 -.02 .09 .82 .71 .81
CPP3 (20) -.04 .15 .17 -.11 .69 .70 .81
CPP4 (21) .16 -.12 -.05 .08 .82 .73 .79
CPP5 (22) -.05 .24 -.03 .06 .54 .51 .72
Note. Factor loadings are standardized. Values loading on their intended factors are in bold. Item
numbers corresponding with those found in the Appendix A are listed inside brackets. Factor
loadings for each factor in the confirmatory factor analysis are found in the rightmost column.
Page 36 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 37
Appendix A. List of 50 Items Vetted by Coaches in Study 1 and 51 Items used in Study 2.
Need to Know
1. Explain to your adult athletes why they are learning something (1)
2. Create situations wherein adult athletes discover for themselves why they are learning a skill/tactic (2)
3. Use performance assessments to help your adult athletes understand why they need to learn a skill/tactic (3)
Self Direction
4. Create situations in which your adult athletes take responsibility in training (4)
5. Allow your adult athletes to make their own decisions and choices with regards to their training (5)
6. Set up the training environment so that your adult athletes have choices? (6)
Life Experiences
7. Individualize your coaching for each adult athlete based on what s/he has been able to do in past experiences (7)
8. Help your adult athletes examine their habits and biases when they encounter something new (8)
9. Listen to your adult athletes' comments about their past experiences to inform how you set up their training (9)
10. Ask your adult athletes about their past experiences to help you plan their training (10)
11. Challenge your adult athletes to try something new (11)
Readiness to Learn
12. Expose your adult athletes to something new to prepare them for learning (12)
13. Design training to be sensitive to demands on your adult athletes' lives outside of sport (13)
14. Consider what your adult athletes want to accomplish when organizing their training (14)
15. Ready your adult athletes to learn by exposing them to higher skilled peers, competitors, or role models (15)
Problem-Centered Orientation
16. Ask your adult athletes what their goals are and how they hope to achieve them (16)
17. Ask your adult athletes to do drills in which they need to resolve a challenge (17)
Page 37 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 38
18. Ask your adult athletes to relate drills/exercises to problems they are facing in sport (18)
19. Ask your adult athletes to relate their training to concerns they are facing outside of sport (19)
Motivated by Internal Cues
20. Purposefully incorporate variety in your adult athletes' training (20)
21. Set up opportunities for your adult athletes to experience success in practice (21)
22. Set up opportunities for competitive activities for your adult athletes during practice (22)
23. Consider your adult athletes' personal motives when planning your practices (23)
Accumulated Experience and Professional Development
24. Demonstrate to your adult athletes that you have knowledge tailored to coaching adults that is different from coaching youth (24)
25. Identify to your adult athletes how your own sport experience bears on the information that your share with them (25)
26. Share information from your own professional coaching development with your adult athletes (26)
27. Bring in information to adult athletes that you have picked up in your sport experiences elsewhere (i.e., outside of your current program or club) (27)
Preferred Personal Attributes of Coaches
28. Purposefully display your serious commitment to your adult athletes' program (28)
29. Make efforts to relate to your adult athletes in a social context (29)
30. Encourage friendships among your adult athletes (30)
Coaching Behaviours Maximizing Efficiency
31. Treat your athletes as adults (31)
32. Monitor your adult athletes’ effort and work ethic (32)
33. Set up practices so that you are making the most efficient use of practice time (33)
34. Consider how each of your adult athletes wishes to be pushed during practice (34)
35. Consider your adult athletes’ preferences for being held responsible for working hard (35)
36. Make unpopular coaching decisions if it helps your adult athletes get the most out of training (36)
Feedback
Page 38 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 39
37. Use a variety of instructional styles when delivering a practice to your adult athletes (37)
38. Use positive and constructive feedback to encourage your adult athletes (38)
39. Pay close attention to the instructional needs of each adult athlete (39)
40. Take measures to better understand what each adult athlete wants in terms of coaching feedback (40)
41. Avoid negative feedback and criticism of individual adult athletes in front of others (41)
Practice Strategies
42. Explain the purpose of drills to your adult athletes (42)
43. Ensure that coaching resources (e.g., equipment, electronic media) and coaching personnel (e.g., assistant coach) are shared with all of your adult athletes (43)
44. Pay attention to where your adult athletes are in terms of their progress relative to season-long plans (44)
Structural Elements of the Program
45. Consider how to accommodate your adult athletes when you set up practice/competitive schedules (45)
46. Point out to your adult athletes aspects of long-term programming (e.g., practice/competitive schedules) that you have tailored to them (46)
47. Consider how to accommodate athletes in terms of programming, such as practice or competitive schedules. (NA)
Interactions Related to Competition
48. Compete at the same venue as your adult athletes (47)
49. Share information with your adult athletes about how they can improve their preparation for performances (48)
50. Have debrief meetings with your adult athletes after a competition (49)
51. Tailor your support to individual adult athletes at competitions (50)
Note. In order to cross-reference items in Appendix A with those found in Figure 1, we have
included the corresponding item number from the x-axis in Figure 1 in parenthesis at the end of
each item statement. NA = Not applicable is indicated in parenthesis when the item was not
vetted by coaches in Study 1.
Page 39 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 40
Appendix B. Adult oriented sport coaching survey (AOSCS).
Instructions: Based on your current or recent coaching/instruction in your primary Masters
sport, please answer the following items.
1
Never
2 3 4
Sometimes
5 6 7
Always
How frequently do you:
1. Create situations wherein your adult athletes discover for themselves why they are
learning a skill/tactic
2. Use performance assessments to help your adult athletes understand why they need to
learn a skill/tactic
3. Individualize your coaching for each adult athlete based on what s/he has been able to do
in past experiences
4. Listen to your adult athletes' comments about their past experiences to inform how you set
up their training
5. Ask your adult athletes about their past experiences to help you plan their training
6. Consider what your adult athletes want to accomplish when organizing their training
7. Ready your adult athletes to learn by exposing them to higher skilled peers, competitors,
or role models
8. Ask your adult athletes to do drills in which they need to resolve a challenge
9. Ask your adult athletes to relate drills/exercises to problems they are facing in sport
10. Ask your adult athletes to relate their training to concerns they are facing outside of sport
11. Set up opportunities for competitive activities for your adult athletes during practice
Page 40 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 41
12. Identify to your adult athletes how your own sport experience bears on the information
that you share with them
13. Share information from your own professional coaching development with your adult
athletes
14. Bring in information to your adult athletes that you have picked up in your sport
experiences elsewhere (i.e., outside of your current program or club)
15. Consider how each of your adult athletes wishes to be pushed during practice
16. Consider your adult athletes’ preferences for being held responsible for working hard
17. Take measures to better understand what each adult athlete wants in terms of coaching
feedback
18. Pay attention to where your adult athletes are in terms of their progress relative to season-
long plans
19. Consider how to accommodate your adult athletes when you set up practice/competitive
schedules
20. Point out to your adult athletes aspects of long-term programming (e.g.,
practice/competitive schedules) that you have tailored to them
21. Consider how to accommodate your adult athletes in terms of programming, such as
practice or competitive schedules
22. Tailor your support to individual adult athletes at competitions
Note. Considering the Individuality of Athletes (3, 4, 5, 6), Framing Learning Situations ( 1, 2,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11), Imparting Coaching Knowledge (12, 13, 14), Respecting Preferences for
Effort, Accountability, and Feedback (15, 16, 17), Creating Personalized Programming (18,
19, 20, 21, 22)
Page 41 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
192x106mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 42 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 1
Table A. Original List of Adult Oriented Coaching Survey Items and Decisions Regarding Items
Andragogic-based items Decisions regarding items
Need to Know
1. Explain to your adult athletes why they are learning something
(1)
Cut in Study 2 for being conceptually problematic after merged
trimming process
2. Create situations wherein adult athletes discover for themselves
why they are learning a skill/tactic (2)
Retained
3. Use performance assessments to help your adult athletes
understand why they need to learn a skill/tactic (3)
Retained
Self-Direction
4. Create situations in which your adult athletes take responsibility
in training (4)
Cut in Study 2 after merging for low factor loading
5. Allow your adult athletes to make their own decisions and
choices with regards to their training (5)
Cut in Study 2 for being conceptually problematic after merged
trimming process
6. Set up the training environment so that your adult athletes have
choices? (6)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
Page 43 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 2
Life Experiences
7. Individualize your coaching for each adult athlete based on what
s/he has been able to do in past experiences (7)
Retained
8. Help your adult athletes examine their habits and biases when
they encounter something new (8)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
9. Listen to your adult athletes' comments about their past
experiences to inform how you set up their training (9)
Retained
10. Ask your adult athletes about their past experiences to help you
plan their training (10)
Retained
11. Challenge your adult athletes to try something new (11) Cut in Study 2 for being conceptually problematic after merged
trimming process
12. Individualize your approach to coaching for each adult athlete
based on what they know from their past experiences (NA)
Cut in item generation stage because it was difficult to understand
Readiness to Learn
13. Expose your adult athletes to something new to prepare them for
learning (12)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
Page 44 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 3
14. Design training to be sensitive to demands on your adult
athletes' lives outside of sport (13)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
15. Consider what your adult athletes want to accomplish when
organizing their training (14)
Retained
16. Ready your adult athletes to learn by exposing them to higher
skilled peers, competitors, or role models (15)
Retained
17. Make your adult athletes aware of something they don't yet
know as a strategy to prepare them for learning (NA)
Cut in item generation stage because it was difficult to understand
Problem-Centered Orientation
18. Ask your adult athletes what their goals are and how they hope
to achieve them (16)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
19. Ask your adult athletes to do drills in which they need to resolve
a challenge (17)
Retained
20. Ask your adult athletes to relate drills/exercises to problems
they are facing in sport (18)
Retained
Page 45 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 4
21. Ask your adult athletes to relate their training to concerns they
are facing outside of sport (19)
Flagged in Study 1 during coach vetting but retained
22. Help your adult athletes discover their goals (NA) Cut in item generation stage for not helping us learn about adult-
oriented coaching practices and for being difficult to understand.
Motivated by Internal Cues
23. Purposefully incorporate variety in your adult athletes' training
(20)
Cut in Study 2 for being conceptually problematic after merged
trimming process
24. Set up opportunities for your adult athletes to experience
success in practice (21)
Cut in Study 2 after merging for low factor loading and
problematic cross-loading
25. Set up opportunities for competitive activities for your adult
athletes during practice (22)
Retained
26. Consider your adult athletes' personal motives when planning
your practices (23)
Cut for problematic cross-loading after conceptual trimming
27. Set up social activities for your adult athletes (NA) Cut in item generation stage because it was not an important
indicator of its respective theme
Page 46 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 5
28. Encourage your adult athletes to take part in social activities
organized by the club/team (NA)
Cut in item generation stage because it was not an important
indicator of its respective theme
29. Set up practice and interact with your adult athletes to help them
feel confident in their abilities (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
Items derived from Callary, Rathwell et al. (2015)
Accumulated Experience and Professional Development
30. Demonstrate to your adult athletes that you have knowledge
tailored to coaching adults that is different from coaching youth (24)
Cut in Study 2 after merging for low factor loading and
problematic cross-loading
31. Identify to your adult athletes how your own sport experience
bears on the information that your share with them (25)
Retained
32. Share information from your own professional coaching
development with your adult athletes (26)
Retained
33. Bring in information to adult athletes that you have picked up in
your sport experiences elsewhere (i.e., outside of your current
program or club) (27)
Retained
Preferred Personal Attributes of Coaches
Page 47 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 6
34. Purposefully display your serious commitment to your adult
athletes' program (28)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
35. Make efforts to relate to your adult athletes in a social context
(29)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
36. Encourage friendships among your adult athletes (30) Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
37. Engage in sport with your athletes (NA) Cut in item generation stage for not helping us learn about adult-
oriented coaching practices
38. Present yourself in a professional manner (NA) Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
Coaching Behaviours Maximizing Efficiency
39. Treat your athletes as adults (31) Cut in Study 2 after merging for low factor loading and
problematic cross-loading
40. Monitor your adult athletes’ effort and work ethic (32) Cut in Study 2 for problematic cross-loading after conceptual
trimming
41. Set up practices so that you are making the most efficient use of
practice time (33)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
Page 48 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 7
42. Consider how each of your adult athletes wishes to be pushed
during practice (34)
Retained
43. Consider your adult athletes’ preferences for being held
responsible for working hard (35)
Retained
44. Make unpopular coaching decisions if it helps your adult
athletes get the most out of training (36)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
45. Consider the life demands of your adult athletes (NA) Cut in item generation stage for not helping us learn about adult-
oriented coaching practices and not being an important indicator
of its respective theme
46. Take steps to safeguard the integrity of the practices you provide
to athletes (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
47. Hold athletes to account without being authoritative (NA) Cut in item generation stage for not being an important indicator
of its respective theme
Feedback
48. Use a variety of instructional styles when delivering a practice
to your adult athletes (37)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
Page 49 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 8
49. Use positive and constructive feedback to encourage your adult
athletes (38)
Cut in Study 2 after merging for low factor loading and
problematic cross-loading
50. Pay close attention to the instructional needs of each adult
athlete (39)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
51. Take measures to better understand what each adult athlete
wants in terms of coaching feedback (40)
Retained
52. Avoid negative feedback and criticism of individual adult
athletes in front of others (41)
Cut in Study 2 after merging for low loading
Practice Strategies
53. Explain the purpose of drills to your adult athletes (42) Cut in Study 2 after merging for low loading
54. Ensure that coaching resources (e.g., equipment, electronic
media) and coaching personnel (e.g., assistant coach) are shared
with all of your adult athletes (43)
Cut in Study 2 for being conceptually problematic after merged
trimming process
55. Pay attention to where your adult athletes are in terms of their
progress relative to season-long plans (44)
Retained
Page 50 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 9
56. Tell your athletes why they are doing a practice activity so they
can make sense of a drill (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
57. Set-up and plan practices that encourage your athletes to be
more responsible for their training (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
58. Create practices that consider athletes’ preferences for how they
wish to be challenged (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
59. Take steps to vary elements in your practices (NA) Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
60. Take steps to make your practices interesting to athletes (NA) Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
Structural elements of the program and practice
61. Consider how to accommodate your adult athletes when you set
up practice/competitive schedules (45)
Retained
62. Point out to your adult athletes aspects of long-term
programming (e.g., practice/competitive schedules) that you have
tailored to them (46)
Retained
63. Consider how to accommodate athletes in terms of
programming, such as practice or competitive schedules (NA)
Cut in item generation stage, reclaimed in order to maintain
minimum of three items per subscale, and was retained.
Page 51 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 10
Interactions Related to Competition
64. Compete at the same venue as your adult athletes (47) Flagged in Study 1 coach vetting. Cut in Study 2 before merging
for low factor loading
65. Share information with your adult athletes about how they can
improve their preparation for performances (48)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for low factor loading
66. Have debrief meetings with your adult athletes after a
competition (49)
Cut in Study 2 before merging for problematic cross-loading
67. Tailor your support to individual adult athletes at competitions
(50)
Retained
68. Consider the wants and needs of individual athletes when giving
information and support at competitions (NA)
Cut in item generation stage for being difficult to understand
Note. Item # corresponding to Figure 1 is listed in brackets in the left hand column. NA = Not applicable (i.e., item was not vetted by coaches in Study 1).
Page 52 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 11
Appendix C. Adult oriented sport coaching survey (AOSCS).
Instructions: Think about your current/recent involvement in your primary Masters sport.
Consider the coach/instructor who primarily supports you while answering the following
items.
1
Never
2 3 4
Sometimes
5 6 7
Always
How frequently does your instructor:
1. Creates situations wherein I discover for myself why I am learning a skill/tactic
2. Uses performance assessments to help me understand why I need to learn a skill/tactic
3. Individualizes his/her coaching based on what I have been able to do in past experiences
4. Listens to my comments about my past experiences to inform how s/he sets up my training
5. Asks about my past experiences when planning my training
6. Considers what I want to accomplish when organizing my training
7. Readies me to learn by exposing me to higher skilled peers, competitors, or role models
8. Asks me to do drills in which I need to resolve a challenge
9. Asks me to relate drills/exercises to problems I am facing in sport
10. Asks me to relate my training to concerns I am facing outside of sport
11. Sets up opportunities for competitive activities for me during practice
12. Identifies how his/her own sport experience bears on the information that s/he shares with
me
13. Shares information from his/her professional coaching development with me
14. Brings in information to me that s/he has picked up in his/her sport experiences elsewhere
(i.e., outside of my current program or club)
15. Considers how I wish to be pushed during practice
16. Considers my preferences for being held responsible for working hard
Page 53 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology
For Peer Review
ADULT ORIENTED SPORT COACHING SURVEY 12
17. Takes measures to better understand what I want in terms of coaching feedback
18. Pays attention to where I am in terms of my progress relative to season-long plans
19. Considers how to accommodate me when s/he sets up practice/competitive schedules
20. Points out aspects of long-term programming (e.g., practice/competitive schedules) that
s/he has tailored to me
21. Considers how to accommodate me in terms of programming, such as practice or
competitive schedules
22. Tailors his/her support to me at competitions
Note. Considering the Individuality of Athletes (3, 4, 5, 6), Framing Learning Situations ( 1, 2,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11), Imparting Coaching Knowledge (12, 13, 14), Respecting Preferences for
Effort, Accountability, and Feedback (15, 16, 17), Creating Personalized Programming (18,
19, 20, 21, 22)
Page 54 of 54
Human Kinetics, 1607 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61825
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology